|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 13:35:46 GMT -5
Some minor things only and some differences in topics of interest. That's all. ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 30, 2023 13:59:11 GMT -5
I think many would say that going back to basics is going forward per se and bringing in technology in some instances isn't really going forward. Perhaps some day peeps won't need to go out in the countryside because some visual reality thing strapped to their heads gives them all the freedom in the world . In a way from a mindful perspective, it's all mind whether one walks in the countryside without leaving their armchair or not . Like I touched upon before, those without arms and legs might get some real joy from such a contraption, but there doesn't at present seem to be a slowing down of this AI stuff. It's like it's destined to play an even more important role in our evolutionary journey like it or not . I am not keen on it at present to speak on your behalf, or do something you can do yourself but don't seem to be bothered . It kinda weakens you in these regards . virtual reality is an interesting one....one of my kids had a contraption once and I tried it and felt...odd. Sort of 'disconnected'. I've thought about it occasionally, and I think the misconception with it, is that it's designed with the belief that we have a single brain, that's in the head. It's geared towards that brain. But I'd actually say that there are many brains in the body...some folks speak of the heart as a second brain, some folks speak of the gut as a brain, but in a way, every cell in the body is its own brain. So I think what we seek is 'whole experience', we want the whole body involved, we want each and every brain cell fully immersed in direct experience. So I think virtual reality can be very entertaining and good for some folks, but it will always be limited in what it can offer. I'm sure it can offer tremendous sensory pleasure and feeling, and yet....there will still be something missing. I watched a film last year called 'Palm Springs'....I liked it, it's just another of those 'repeating day' films, but I liked how they did it. And in one way, a repetitive day sounds like eternal damnation in its repetitiveness. But then I considered when watching it, there's always a new way to perceive a single blade of grass, or a drop of water. There are infinite new subtleties to notice. And with all the virtual reality-metaverse-augmented reality stuff, it sometimes seems like humans have lost the art of appreciating the subtleties of reality...like....when did reality get so boring that we want such level of distraction? Maybe it's the pain we are in collectively that we are trying to get away from. Though I can actually envision a way that a virtual reality device could be consciously used as a healing tool....that would be pretty cool. I am with you regarding the extra brains lol .. The more the merrier .. I watched something the other day about the Gut Brain and the importance of the right kind of bacteria . I still have my kefer growing from way back . The virual reality thingy I am not drawn to myself, I mean just look how easy kids are swayed playing video games then emulate them in the real world . My step bro many years ago played a game for so long he actually started seeing the characters in real life. He ended up staying in his room for 48 hours in the dark to try and come down from it all . It must do something to the brain for sure .. which one tho Haven't seen that film your on about, but it's food for thought innit ..
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 13:59:18 GMT -5
That was cool lol animals are brilliant. Notice how the parrot was only interested in play and having fun and not in proving anything to anyone. yeah, play is a lighter and more fun way to be. For humans, sometimes, it's complex. If one sincerely feels they have to fight, it's probably better to accept the movement than create resistance around it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2023 14:02:31 GMT -5
I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food. My concept of what the word "distinction" points to is different than simple perception, and it involves an act of psychological/imaginative division of THIS into at least two states--A and not-A. There are some incredibly humorous videos of babies eating lemons for the first time. The baby doesn't know that it's being handed a lemon, or that a lemon is acidic, or bitter, or tastes a particular way, etc. It sucks on the lemon, scrunches up its face, looks at the lemon, sucks on it again, scrunches up its face, etc. This is direct perception and a direct body response without anything being imagined. The baby doesn't think of itself as a separate volitional entity sucking on something separate from itself; it simply sees, tastes, and responds. Later, it will be conditioned by other humans to distinguish a lemon as a separate thing, labeled "lemon," and it will make many other distinctions about lemons as well as various judgements. As a baby, everything is direct and unmediated by ideation because it hasn't yet attained sufficient intellectual development to form various concepts about itself and the world. I can understand why others might want to define the word more broadly, but from my POV an act of imagination is involved in what I call the act of distinction. Adult humans have already internalized millions of distinctions about the world, and they know the world in two different ways, both directly through the body and what we might call "subconscious mental processing" and through thoughts about it. It's the difference between gnosis and episteme. An adult who accidentally touches a hot stovetop does not need to think in order to jerk its hand away, and that's what I could call "a direct response to direct sensory perception." If an adult looks at the world in mental silence, it sees "what is" as it is, but it does so without conscious distinction because there's no thought ABOUT what's being seen. The seeing is "empty" because the world is not being seen through a filter of images, ideas, and symbols. Given your definitions, that really all works well for me. At the risk of sounding like Columbo....I have just one question lol.....if the intense adult human conceptual abstractions that come with eating a lemon are part of 'imagination', then what do you see as the difference between that and what most people consider 'imagination'? (e.g closing my eyes right now I can imagine unicorns flying round the sky).
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 30, 2023 14:07:40 GMT -5
Identifying is identifying . Identification as Niz is using that term...as I am using it = the presence of an imagined fundamentally, separate entity/person. In misconceived "identity" there is an erroneous sense/imagining of being limited/bound to and as a discrete entity which is separately existent from all other separately existent entities and things. ... You spoke about my words were self identifying . I don't believe in a separate person . If you believe you are not a separate person then you are identifying oneself as that . There is no way round it . To talk about there is only what you are is no different to talking about what you are unlimited . Identification is identification, believing in oneself as separate person or not .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 30, 2023 14:12:23 GMT -5
Beyond identifying there are no references for what you are as unlimited or unbounded, keeping inline with your chosen words. This is why when other's speak about realising what they are as consciousness, then I ask them was the reference given to you beyond the thought and meaning of it . Of course, the answer is no . A true realization is a seeing through that then equals an absence. The seeing through/absence is not itself a thought....there is no "meaning" inherent in that seeing through/absence itself, but, in mind's informing, yes, there is meaning assigned as the seeing through/absence is conceptualized. Absent that assignation of meaning and conceptualization, we wouldn't be able to write about/talk about realization. But, the realization/seeing through itself does not involve any concepts.....intellect is not involved until mind tries to make sense of the seeing through/shift in locus of seeing. .. My words stand . That is why one doesn't realise one as consciousness . This is pure mind . I agree one wouldn't be able to talk about realisation . That's why I don't . This is why I don't talk about truth realisations pertaining to dreamy worlds and figments etc . I have even said that ' what you are is all there is' isn't realised beyond the thought of what it even means . This is why at times I flag up peeps who declare this and that, when it's not true .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 30, 2023 14:15:36 GMT -5
ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect. I have said it before. There isn't much talk or understanding about what an individual constitutes. For many it just refers to a SVP in illusory terms where appearances only enter the scene .
|
|
|
Post by tenka on May 30, 2023 14:22:55 GMT -5
Same applies for one that declares they are unlimited or unbounded whilst declaring they are not self identifying with that .It's not true, of course they are. What is unlimited and unbounded is referred to based upon what they supposedly mean to you . All this is mindful . The conceptualizing of the non-conceptual realization in order to talk about IS mindful, but the non-conceptual apprehension/realization is not. The reference for the realization itself, is beyond words...beyond ALL concepts. It just sounds like something of mind/conceptual as we write about 'it' and try to talk about 'it.' .. That's all we can do, so what I said above stands . Speaking about identifying oneself as unlimited and unbounded has to filter through what that means to oneself. In reflection of what one believes themselves to be . That is identifying through self association . Again, it's all mindful . There is no super trump identifying thingy going on .. it's just one form of identification that reflects something different from what someone else believes to be true in regards to what they think they are .
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 14:31:02 GMT -5
ZD is adamant that there is no person doing anything in any sense, that what appears to be a person acting is the movement of the Whole. I've pushed him to the limit on this. I even once brought up the Buddhist concept of the two truths, the relative truth of the everyday world and the Absolute Truth. His reply was no, there are not two truths, there is only one truth. You have a context of A-H LOA where Reefs can influence his life. This does not fit in any way-shape-or form with ZD's view. I'd say that's not a minor difference (acknowledging you also have a ND context like ZD). I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect. OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 14:33:24 GMT -5
I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect. I have said it before. There isn't much talk or understanding about what an individual constitutes. For many it just refers to a SVP in illusory terms where appearances only enter the scene . Yes. This is why a humorous response to a Zen-oriented person's question, "Who are you. really?" would be to say, "Speak! Speak! What we are is what everyone else is.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 30, 2023 14:44:49 GMT -5
It's as if the electricity in an appliance identified itself with the appliance. I'm a blender. I'm a fridge. I'm washer. I'm a robot. I'm Chuckie.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 14:48:20 GMT -5
I see no contradiction here. We usually use the word "person" to refer to a SVP, and the SVP is an illusion. What we are is THIS manifesting through human bodies. We can use conventional language to talk about all kinds of relative dualistic ideas about what's going on, but after one sees that THIS is all there is, it becomes clear that whatever a human is doing or thinking is what THIS is doing or thinking. In fact, when the sense of being a SVP collapses, life is felt to be more like a flow of being, or an unfolding of THIS, rather than static things happening to static entities. Furthermore, abstract ideas, such as "the relative world" or "the Absolute Truth," lose importance because it's seen that the relative and the absolute are one and the same. I should probably also mention that "THIS," as a pointer, is nothing more than a pointer because what the word "THIS" points to cannot be grasped by the intellect. OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question. Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2023 15:26:51 GMT -5
OK, I'm getting close. I don't guess you read any of the Jed McKenna books. They were a kind of part-story fictionalized account of this guy, "Jed" (not his real name), I presume based on his life (that's just a kind of introduction). But Jed got to the point where he could manifest his life circumstances in any way he wished (money, do what he wished, travel, etc). Reefs claims to be able to do the same, "form" his life circumstances via Abraham-Hicks kind of "bending reality" (my words). You said there is no contradiction. So you accept Reefs ability to do this? Serious question. (Almost everything you previously wrote seems to indicate there is no person doing anything, so there isn't even a "Jed" or a Reefs who could do such things). So it seems your view would be no, any appearance of such doing is illusory, things are just happening the way they are happening, period. A truly serious question. Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. OK, I have no problem with any of that, but...I'll take a non-answer, as an answer. .......A Jesus-story, as an example. Jesus didn't claim to do any of the miracles, the father did them, but the fact is they happened in-his-presence. Once, either he or his disciples had to pay some taxes. So Jesus said to go fish at a certain place. And they caught a fish which had swallowed some coins, enough to pay the taxes. ....And he also said, the things I do you can do too. Yes, there is this flow, George Leonard called it The Silent Pulse. Yes, it can be tuned in to. ....I'll accept there was a long chain of events the resulted in that coin-fish, at that time. And Jesus knew how to tap-in-to that chain of events. I don't think it was a miracle in the sense God put the coins in the fish and told Jesus about it, right then and there. I prefer to say it takes a body-individual to tap-in-to the flow. And the SVP-conditioned-thingy, is an obstruction to tapping-in-to. Just my view. And...if money hadn't been needed for taxes, some other lucky somebody might have caught the fish, or not.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on May 30, 2023 16:16:46 GMT -5
I'd say animals demonstrate strong recognition of food. They just aren't invested in the experience of the abstraction itself. They just want the food lol. Humans tend to love the experience of the abstraction as much as they love food.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 30, 2023 16:18:16 GMT -5
Correct. I haven't read any of the McKenna books because they sound like shock-jock stuff implying that waking up is some horrible transformative event (akin to "being skinned alive," etc). ITSW, Shiv's book, "Advaitacoholics Anonymous," appears to set up a straw man for people who are guru worshipers or people strongly attached to religious belief systems, and it ignores the simple down-to-earth path of having realizations that change one's habits of mind and lead to psychological freedom. Yes, THIS can apparently do lots of things that appear to be non-rational or non-logical. In the past I wondered if there could be a logical explanation for the "miracles" reported in various spiritual traditions. After a CC it became apparent that THIS can do anything via particular humans. I've never been interested in making anything unusual happen or manifesting anything because ordinary life seems fine just as it is. I've seen unusual things happen, and even my wife has had a non-local event occur, so I accept that THIS can manifest in many unexpected and non-logical ways. OK, I have no problem with any of that, but...I'll take a non-answer, as an answer. .......A Jesus-story, as an example. Jesus didn't claim to do any of the miracles, the father did them, but the fact is they happened in-his-presence. Once, either he or his disciples had to pay some taxes. So Jesus said to go fish at a certain place. And they caught a fish which had swallowed some coins, enough to pay the taxes. ....And he also said, the things I do you can do too. Yes, there is this flow, George Leonard called it The Silent Pulse. Yes, it can be tuned in to. ....I'll accept there was a long chain of events the resulted in that coin-fish, at that time. And Jesus knew how to tap-in-to that chain of events. I don't think it was a miracle in the sense God put the coins in the fish and told Jesus about it, right then and there. I prefer to say it takes a body-individual to tap-in-to the flow. And the SVP-conditioned-thingy, is an obstruction to tapping-in-to. Just my view. And...if money hadn't been needed for taxes, some other lucky somebody might have caught the fish, or not. Well, if the story is true, no one else could have caught the fish because there was no other alternative except in imagination. That's why I often say it's impossible to make a mistake. There's no "me" doing anything, and THIS unfolds however it unfolds. In this sense there's no "tapping into the flow" because what we are is the flow. Our conventional use of language obscures the underlying unity of "what is." Whatever happens is the only way it can happen. Paul Morgan-Somers has said that he knew all kinds of things prior to their occurrence (including his future wife's name two years before he met her), and I assume that this kind of internal knowing, or intuitive knowing, is simply an illustration that THIS is a unified whole that includes what we call "past, present, and future" as one indivisible NOWness.
|
|